Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
U.S. v. Rose

7 Citing cases

  1. Garner v. U.S. Dept. of Labor

    221 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 21 times
    In Garner, the issue was whether the constitutional protection that "[n]o Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed" was violated.

    We agree with that conclusion. United States v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1998); Bae v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 1995). Slugocki v. Department of Labor, 988 F. Supp. 1443 (S.D.Fla. 1997).

  2. U.S. v. Wilson

    210 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    Suggesting constitutional challenge that charge based on statute violates Ex Post Facto clause has jurisdictional consequences

    " Id. at 466-67. See also United States v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397, 1402-1403 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208, 211 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1998). Wilson's reliance on United States v. Mussari, 152 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1998), is misplaced.

  3. U.S. v. Richards

    204 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a joint conspiracy trial was proper based on the lack of complexity of the conspiracy, the number of defendants, and an appropriate jury instruction

    This circuit has held that restitution imposed under the VWPA is punishment for the purpose of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208, 211 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Corn, 836 F.2d 889, 895-96 (5th Cir. 1988). By requiring the court to order restitution in the full amount of loss, without considering the defendant's ability to pay, the MVRA increases the severity of the punishment a defendant faces as compared to the pre-amendment VWRA.

  4. U.S. v. Jennings

    195 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that the mere "possession of an unregistered pipe bomb, by its very nature, creates a substantial risk of violence"

    We review constitutional challenges de novo. See United States v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208, 209 (5th Cir. 1998). Jennings's constitutional challenge is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 1205 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1104, 140 L.Ed.2d 159 (1998).

  5. U.S. v. URSO

    Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1230-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 18, 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that immediate payment can be required even if the judgment specifies that it be paid in installments

    See Tex. Fam. Code § 3.102. She argues that restitution is penal in nature and is therefore a nontortious obligation, citing United States v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208, 211 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1998), and Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 55 (1986). Accordingly, Rita Urso contends that her wages cannot be garnished to satisfy her husband's criminal restitution.

  6. Holliman v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice

    2:00-CV-0291 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2001)

    Because the prohibition covers only retroactive application of legislation which is punitive in nature, the initial inquiry is whether the challenged statute is punitive. United States v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1998). Texas Government Code section 411.148 provides for the maintenance of DNA records on inmates who have been convicted or adjudicated as having engaged in murder, aggravated assault, first or second degree burglary of a habitation, or an offense for which the inmate is required to register as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.148 (West, WESTLAW through 1999 Reg. Sess.). The purpose for the maintenance of such DNA records is set forth in Texas Government Code section 411.143, which specifies the purpose is primarily to "assist federal, state, or local criminal justice or law enforcement agencies in the investigation or prosecution of sex-related offenses or other offenses in which biological evidence is recovered."

  7. Garner v. U.S. Dept. of Labor

    114 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D. Miss. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    a statute violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if (1) it criminalizes conduct that was legal when done; (2) inflicts greater punishment for an offense than was inflicted by the law in existence at the time the offense was committed; or (3) eliminates a defense that was available under the law at the time the offense was committed.United States v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990)). However, the Ex Post Facto Clause only applies to laws which may be characterized as "punishment."